Background and objectives: Precise full-arch digital impressions serve as a cornerstone in achieving predictable
outcomes in fixed prosthodontics and implant-supported rehabilitation While intraoral scanners continue to advance,
their trueness and precision relative to laboratory scanners remain critical for clinical application. This study aimed to
quantitatively compare the trueness and precision of three contemporary intra oral scanner TRIOS 5, Medit i900, and
Cameo Elegant 3 with laboratory reference scanner.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study, conducted at Khanzad Teaching Center in Erbil from April to July 2025,
assessed the full‑arch trueness and precision of three intraoral scanners against a laboratory scanner as the reference. A standardized maxillary resin model with three predefined inter‑pin distances was scanned, and deviations were analyzed using 3D metrology software.
Results: Across D1, D2, and D3, all intraoral scanners showed mean deviations within approximately 0.2–0.5% of the
laboratory reference values. The laboratory scanner consistently demonstrated the lowest variability (<0.1%), while
Comeo Elegant 3 exhibited the highest range of variation (up to ~0.4%). Overall, 3Shape TRIOS 5 and Medit i900
maintained deviations within clinically acceptable limits, though Medit i900 showed slightly lower trueness for certain
distances.
Conclusions: The laboratory scanner demonstrated superior trueness and precision. Among IOS devices, TRIOS 5
outperformed Mediti900 and Cameo Elegant 3, confirming the established accuracy hierarchy and emphasizing selection based on clinical application.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
